Husband won't put me on title for new home

[johan]

Ah! so because the space is simply here & I own it, I should let a man live in it rent free or I'm a horrible person?

 

Okay, I can live with that, guess he'll have to go find another fairy Godmother to "gift" him with free housing

 

I don't think it's a question of whether you're a horrible person. Your extreme black-and-white thinking makes it hard to have a discussion with you.

 

It's more a question of whether the resentment that builds when the relationship is built around counting pennies and billing each other is too much for a good relationship to bear. I think it is. Finances are important, but they aren't everything.

[soserious1]

Finances are important, but they aren't everything.

 

Sorry but I already support one male prostitute... err.. ex-husband, there aren't any more dollars left to foot the bills for another.

[johan]

The attitude you've been advocating is the perspective of the thief or the con artist.

 

It makes me think whatever your personal deal might be you're not pulling your own financial weight.

 

I didn't make that clear? I definitely embrace all that is evil in the world. Take what you can get, I always say. I've had my eye on you since I saw your first post. I can tell you have assets, and it's hard to resist when another fat target shows up.

[maybealone]

But if someone "rents" it is because they went that direction. When someone marries, its suppose to be with the understanding that they both are "building" a life together. So if she is cut out of the deal with the home so to speak, then she should get something of her own without him laying claim to it.

 

Oh, I definitely agree she should have some investment of her own set up so that he agrees to have no legal claim on. But people can build a life anywhere, it doesn't have to be a home that both people own equally. And the way the economy is, she might do better investing in her own retirement than hoping for equity in a home.

[soserious1]

Of course it's reasonable except if someone is trying to press your emotional buttons while trying to manipulate you.

 

If you're paying half or more than half, why, then you must be "all about money" if you don't want to pay 100% for the both of you.

 

I know a manipulative comment when I see one (as I am sure you do, maybe you are just too polite to point it out though) and anyone who is going to accuse you of being "all about the money" when they don't acknowledge their equal obligation is just a con artist. They are just trying to make you feel guilty to feather their own nest.

 

Oh I know all about that particular guilt trip, I spent years bending over backwards & apologizing because I earned enough to support my ex. It will never happen again.

[johan]

Except for the fact that it was soserious's husband who took ridiculous financial advantage of her with the aid of the courts, not the other way around.

 

It's not clear exactly where this poster is coming from but there is a huge lack of sincerity coming through loud and clear in his attacks on soserious.

 

I'm pointing out that her attitude is good for protecting your finances. It is not good for keeping a relationship going.

 

Point out the insincerity.

[soserious1]

I'm pointing out that her attitude is good for protecting your finances. It is not good for keeping a relationship going.

 

Point out the insincerity.

 

Guess what? I don't want a relationship with somebody who expects me to prove my "sincerity" by giving him access to my assets.

[johan]

Guess what? I don't want a relationship with somebody who expects me to prove my "sincerity" by giving him access to my assets.

 

That's your choice. Knock yourself out. I don't criticize you for it at all. You have your priorities. I'm done pointing out that your priorities don't make sense for a lot of other people. They aren't the only way of looking at the world.

 

I'm asking where it is that I was insincere. I don't think I was at all.

[johan]

You expect something from the other person that you are not willing to be responsible for yourself.

 

You imply that it's perfectly O.K. for you to help yourself to someone else's finances and not make an equal contribution, yet you accuse someone else of "protecting finances" even though she is willing to pay a fair share and you are not.

 

You were asked by carhill to describe your own situation for some insight as to why are you taking this position and you've been silent on it.

 

The reasonable conclusion is that you are either not in a relationship or you manipulated to get an unfair financial advantage and you are quite content with that.

 

Actually none of those things are true, Sherlock.

[Els]

Ah! so because the space is simply here & I own it, I should let a man live in it rent free or I'm a horrible person?

 

Okay, I can live with that, guess he'll have to go find another fairy Godmother to "gift" him with free housing

 

And see, this post of yours makes your position on the entire financial issue crystal clear. It isn't just about 'protecting yourself from bankruptcy should another divorce occur'. Charging them rent is not even related to that - it will not affect how your assets and finances are distributed after a divorce.

 

No, it is about you not understanding that relationships are about give and take, and helping one another in the ways that you are each best able to. It is about you not understanding that finances are not the only way in which people can contribute in a relationship, but instead just one of the many.

[carhill]

With a compatible man, both the OP and Soserious1 can have loving and healthy relationships. Compatibility is key. Both their perspectives are valid. Soserious1 has stated in the past she isn't looking for a long-term or marital partner anymore but I personally wouldn't see her perspective as a deal-breaker for such a union, again with a compatible man, one who has his own life's work and doesn't see the co-mingling of same to be part and parcel of 'love' and 'commitment'. The OP, OTOH, feels distanced from her spouse, apparently due to his frugality as well as this inheritance home purchase. They apparently have markedly differing perspectives on life's work, family, inheritance and money. Hopefully, as she has not returned, they've worked it out.

[johan]

Let me just clarify: I expressed my opinion based on my own life experiences and those of my friends and family. It's my opinion and I stand by it, just like soserious stands by hers. I respect where she's coming from, and I understand why she feels like she does. But I'm pointing out it can't be the model for everyone else.

[soserious1]

That's your choice. Knock yourself out. I don't criticize you for it at all. You have your priorities. I'm done pointing out that your priorities don't make sense for a lot of other people. They aren't the only way of looking at the world.

 

I'm asking where it is that I was insincere. I don't think I was at all.

 

Well, I'm looking to avoid people who feel that they have the right to expect me to make giving them my money a top "priority"

 

If man expects a woman to "prove her love" by giving him unfettered access to her assets, he'd best just walk on past me because it will not be happening.

[johan]

So tell us who pays for what in your own relationship and how that division of obligation was negotiated between you and your partner.

 

Are you the one paying 100% of the bills, and if so, why is it acceptable to you to have a freeloader for a partner?

 

Where did I say one partner should be a feeloader? Quote where I said it, or admit you made it up.

 

If you find a quote, I'll clarify it.

[Els]

Someone has to pay the rent.

 

Do you live in a Communist state or something? When a house has already been paid for, there is no rent.

[Els]

You may want to read my above post.

[soserious1]

And see, this post of yours makes your position on the entire financial issue crystal clear. It isn't just about 'protecting yourself from bankruptcy should another divorce occur'. Charging them rent is not even related to that - it will not affect how your assets and finances are distributed after a divorce.

 

No, it is about you not understanding that relationships are about give and take, and helping one another in the ways that you are each best able to. It is about you not understanding that finances are not the only way in which people can contribute in a relationship, but instead just one of the many.

 

And you assume that clearly the only thing of value that I'm bringing to the table is money & that if I'm not willing to fork it over then obviously I don't understand relationships.

 

I'm not interested in providing free room and board to anyone, my experiences with this have shown me that people value things in the same exact proportion that they pay for them & that in situations where you give a partner a free ride by footing most of their bills, generally what they "give" back is even more bills for you to pay, along with a healthy dose of contempt should you expect them to do anything in return.

 

I'll pay my 50 % of expenses, stay solely responsible for my personal bills & will cheerfully do 50% of the cooking & cleaning but my days of supporting a husband will not return again.

[Lauriebell82]

Wow, it's too bad that this thread turned into an argument over finances. Obviously everyone is going to have different ideas about marital finances and how to deal with them. What is bickering back and forth even solving? I hope that OP has come up with a solution to her problem and has worked things out with her husband.

 

In the old days Tony would have shut this thing down a long time ago...

[johan]

LOL. You criticized soserious because she expects her partner to pay his fair share. Someone who is unwilling to pay their fair share, (if they have the capacity to do so) is by definition a freeloader.

 

Again you are asked: What is the division in your relationship? You are quick to criticize others but remain silent on the question.

 

I never said anyone should be a freeloader. I'm not repeating myself. If you refuse to read my posts, then why should I take the time to write another one to clarify my position, so that you can ignore it and continue to accuse me of being a bad person?

 

There is a difference between sharing things equally and splitting all bills down the middle, 50/50. I prefer to be in a sharing relationship.

[Els]

'Charging rent for an owned house' is not nearly the same thing as 'splitting expenses for current bills and maintenance'. If you think they are, you need a logic check.

 

I also find it amusing that you personally interrogate and insult everyone who answers you. Are you so lacking in confidence in your argument's ability to stand up on its own logic, that you must resort to personal quips to back it up?

[soserious1]

I never said anyone should be a freeloader. I'm not repeating myself. If you refuse to read my posts, then why should I take the time to write another one to clarify my position, so that you can ignore it and continue to accuse me of being a bad person?

 

There is a difference between sharing things equally and splitting all bills down the middle, 50/50. I prefer to be in a sharing relationship.

 

Ah yes, the "sharing relationship" one in which I make all the money & my partner "shares" all his bills with me, been there, done that!

[denise_xo]

That's the whole problem with OP's perspective. She wants the "sharing of money" to flow in a one way direction only, towards herself, not away from it.

 

The OP was the bread winner in her marriage for two years.

 

The OP's problem is not one of wanting a one directional flow of money. The problem is that they lack compatibility in how to deal with finances, and in their perspectives on how a marital home should be acquired.

[soserious1]

'Charging rent for an owned house' is not nearly the same thing as 'splitting expenses for current bills and maintenance'. If you think they are, you need a logic check.

 

I also find it amusing that you personally interrogate and insult everyone who answers you. Are you so lacking in confidence in your argument's ability to stand up on its own logic, that you must resort to personal quips to back it up?

 

This is "MY" house, why should anybody expect that they should be able to have run of the place without paying a single dime?

 

I have never lived ANYWHERE that I didn't have to write a check every month for. I would NEVER dream of moving into a home owned by a man without knowing what fair market value rents were in his area & writing him a check every month for my housing costs. At the very minimum, I'd offer to give him a the same amount I was currently paying for my rent.

[carhill]

That's the whole problem with OP's perspective. She wants the "sharing of money" to flow in a one way direction only, towards herself, not away from it.

 

As she is currently a student, financing her education and some of her/their expenses on student loans, it sounds reasonable that some sharing should occur. In the past, she states, when her H was unemployed, she was the primary sharer and he the beneficiary. Her perspective, from my viewpoint, is colored by an opinion about his financial 'style', his frugality, using her word, and his purchase of this marital home with inheritance funds and the timeline of how the process worked, in that it was approached as a shared decision, one designed to benefit her, moving her closer to her school, even though further from his work, and then the unilateral announcement (without apparent discussion) of he taking title as sole and separate owner once the paperwork started. While I might, and do, support his prerogative regarding taking title, he could have handled the process in a more open, synergistic and loving manner. As she hasn't added anything further, perhaps they found a middle ground which satisfies both of them, or she filed for divorce. Hard to know since she never updated. That's how it goes around here sometimes.

[johan]

In my relationships paying the bills is voluntary. "I'll get it this month." We care about each other's feelings do our parts voluntarily. Money isn't the only currency. Bills aren't the only cost. I'm happy with, "Did you pay the phone bill? Let me make dinner."

 

If you're with someone who always refuses to do their share, then you know they don't respect you, and you have something to discuss. If you're with someone who actually feels comfortable living off of you and claiming things as theirs that they didn't actually earn, you're in trouble. The fact that they volunteer less and look for ways to put the burden on you is a great indicator of their character.

 

It's the opportunities that they pass up to help out as opposed to the monthly contract they didn't fulfill. Things aren't always equal in a relationship. One person does more cleaning. The other buys groceries more often. They never have equal been for me. I've always been the one with the money.

 

It works out the same, with one exception. In soserious' case the message is,"money first, relationship second." Maybe for her at this point it's "relationship 10th." In mine the message is, "relationship first, money second."

 

If I were the husband of the original poster I would look for ways to make sure she doesn't feel excluded or disenfrachised. She should feel it's their home together. If that means doing something else with the inheritance, then that's for the best.